Your Word is
Truth, Essays in Celebration of
the 50th Anniversary of the New World Translation of the
Holy Scriptures (1950, 1953).
The book was edited by Anthony Byatt and Hal Flemings and
published in 2004. It is available from Golden Age
Books and Stoops
Manufacturing Co.

Book Contents: As the sub-title indicates, this book
consists of a series of essays by eight authors. The New World
Translation Bible published by the Watchtower Society is the
subject of their book. Only two of the chapters have material
which concerns us on this web site. They are highlighted in the
index list below. The chapters—and their respective
authors—are:

The NWT's Translation of the Hebrew Verbal
System—With Particular Stress on the Waw
Consecutive, by Rolf Furuli

13.

Disputed Renderings in the Hebrew Scriptures, by
Hal Flemings

14.

The accuracy of the NWT in Paul's Letter to
the Ephesians, by Anthony Byatt

Bibliography of the New World
Translation Reviews

Select Bibliography

Index of Bible References

Index of Hebrew, Greek and Latin
Words

Index of Subjects

First Impression: By way of general comment, the book
evidences a great deal of care in its extensive references and
copious footnotes. The result is a wealth of bibliographic
information supporting selected unique qualities of the New
World Translation. The bibliography and index information at
the close of the book is a valuable resource for further study
and is not limited to only those publications which endorse the
New World Translation. The bibliography entitled The
Bibliography of the New World Translation Reviews is
particularly noteworthy in this regard.

We say, "Job well done." to the editors Anthony
Byatt and Hal Flemings and the contributing authors who
participated in the project.

Overview: All but two of the topics in 'Your Word is
Truth' are outside the concern of our own books. However, in
Chapter 8: Distinguishing the 'Lords': Does Jesus Take
Jehovah's Name?, our book The Tetragrammaton and the
Christian Greek Scriptures is extensively quoted and debated.
As a result, our attention is then drawn to Chapter 2: Use of
the Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures, in which
The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures is
not referenced but should be.

The editors of 'Your Word is Truth' have
inadvertently reversed the significance of these two topics.

Therefore, let me summarize these two chapters
by using direct quotations. Extended quotations are used in order
to preserve the authors' meaning within its context. I will
indicate the location of the quotation from 'Your Word is
Truth' with brackets [ ] indicating the page number on which
that citation is found. In some cases, when our own book The
Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures is cited, I
will link the quotation to our book using a [TCGS] link
symbol. You can also open the complete The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek
Scriptures on this site.

Our comments will always be in this first font.
Quotations from 'Your Word is Truth' (and other
incidental quotations) will always be in this second font.
Sub-headings in 'Your Word is Truth' are set in ALL
CAPITAL LETTERS.

Chapter 8: Distinguishing the 'Lords': Does Jesus Take
Jehovah's Name? by Anthony Byatt

The New World Translation of the Holy
Scriptures has been attacked for its insertion of the name
Jehovah into a number of the quotations and allusions from the
Hebrew Scriptures.[108]

"(H)is faith was not dependent on the
presence of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek
Scriptures." He found this inconsistent, arguing that, "without
the Tetragrammaton in the original Greek Scriptures, this
Overseer must acknowledge that the one bearing the title Kyrios
(Kurios) stands as fully identified with Yhwh."
[TCGS]

It will be the purpose of this essay to show
that 'Lord' (kurios) used for both persons, does not mean
that Jesus is Jehovah. Lundquist himself considers that, on the
one hand, Kyrios was allowed to have a broader meaning,
but also that "we must consider purposeful indistinct meaning as
the writing method."[TCGS] This
is to argue that the writers either did not know who they were
talking about, or wished their readers to be uncertain, or even
deceived as to the identity of the person referred
to.[*] That would be quite contrary to all the rest of
Scripture, and to the one who inspired it, Jehovah God
himself.[109]

[*] Irrespective of our
personal theological position, if we are to list all of the
possible options available to the writers, we would need to
list them as: 1) the writers did not know who they were talking
about, 2) the writers wished their readers to be uncertain who
they were talking about, 3) the writers wished their readers to
be deceived as to the identity of the person referred to, or 4)
the writers knew who they were talking about and yet chose to
use a single word for both Jehovah and Jesus.

IDENTITY CONFUSED IN SEPTUAGINT AND CHURCH FATHERS
[110]

The use of the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew
Scriptures, and its proper translation by either 'Jehovah' or
'Yahweh', or some variant spelling of this name, makes clear the
identity of the speaker as the one God, the Father. The religion
of the Israelites was very clearly defined as monotheistic, the
worship of just one God, Jehovah.

But then the name became the subject of
superstition, and the Jews almost ceased to pronounce it, and
various substitutes were used, one of which was 'Lord'. When
Hebrew began to fade from everyday use, Greek became the language
for many Hellenistic Jews. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) was
started around 280 B.C.E., and its later manuscripts replaced the
Tetragrammaton with kurios (Lord), in most cases, and also
used kurios in many places where it was a direct
equivalent for the parallel Hebrew word. The resulting confusion
helped to create the problem—which Lord is which?
[110]

[Following a discussion of the Church Fathers,
Anthony Byatt concludes by saying,] We have now looked at
reviewer's criticisms, and then traced back to the
Septuagint and the Church Fathers the origins of these
views and teachings. Let us now examine the problem arising from
this confusion of two 'Lords'.[110-11]

ISOLATING THE PROBLEM OF THE 'LORDS' [111]

When the Greek term kurios is used in
the Christian Scriptures it has a very wide connotation. It can
stand in place of the Tetragrammaton (Jehovah), and in certain
cases it clearly refers to the Father when there is little
suggestion that the Tetragrammaton might be behind the text. Then
it is also used of Jesus Christ, at first in the polite
widespread custom of the first century C.E., and meaning, 'Sir'
or 'Master'. Then as Jesus' designation as 'Lord' by his Father
came to be appreciated by the apostles and disciples, it was used
with a heightened meaning, and even the phrase 'Lord of Lords'
was correctly applied to Jesus. We can therefore see why this
possess a problem, when into this confusion is thrust the idea
linked with the Trinity that there may in effect only be 'one
Lord'.

We will establish by direct discussion of
many scriptures that the two Lords are usually clearly
distinguished, and that the lordship of Christ was bestowed upon
him by his Father, Jehovah, without any way diminishing Jehovah's
own Almightiness.[*] They do not have to belong to a
Trinity for the most perfect unity and oneness to exist between
Father and Son. But first, we need to consider the place of the
Tetragrammaton behind the word kurios, to see if it is
possible to make our entire subject very much clearer to our
understanding.[111-12]

[*] We understand the point
of view of the editors of this book that the names of Jehovah
and the Lord Jesus must always be distinguished from each
other. This they maintain irrespective of the voluminous
ancient Greek manuscript evidence which uses only the single
word Kurios to identify both. We will return later to
this topic. However, the reader must be aware of a shift which
has taken place in the tone of this chapter. The underlying
assumption is not whether or not the names are clearly
distinguished from each other, but rather a predetermined
conclusion that they are distinguished from each
other.

WHY HEBREW TRANSLATIONS USED THE TETRAGRAMMATON
[112]

The use of Hebrew Translations of the N.T., to
give backing to placing 'Jehovah' in the text of the NWT
of the Christian Greek Scriptures, has evinced much
criticism. But we need to ask this question—why did so many
qualified scholars include the Tetragrammaton in their Hebrew
N.T. translations made since the sixteenth century C.E.? . . .
The Septuagint translators faced the problem of having to
distinguish between Hebrew Adonai (Lord) and the
Tetragrammaton. "The solution they generally seem to have settled
on was to render Adonai as ho kyrios (the Lord) and
YHVH as simply kyrios without the definite article," says
Ray Pritz. But because the LXX was translated over quite a
long period of years, its translators did not consistently follow
that rule. These two forms were carried over into the Christian
Greek Scriptures, but again, "to make things more complicated,
the form of kyrios without the definite article is
occasionally used of Jesus, as in Luke 2:11."

In the modern Hebrew N.T., it was decided to stay
with a'don (Lord) and adonai (LORD) for
kyrios, except for quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures,
when the Tetragrammaton would be used, and in a few cases "where
the context seemed to demand it,"[*] such as
Revelation 19:6.

[*] Anthony Byatt does not
inform the reader that "where the context seemed to demand it"
is not determined by manuscript evidence but by the theological
bias of the translator.

So the NWT followed this same method,
generally restricting its use of 'Jehovah' to quotations and
allusions from the Hebrew Scriptures for two important reasons.
To continue to give honor to the name Jehovah in an accurate
translation of the Hebrew, and second, to continue to distinguish
between the Lords, so that readers would be more easily aware of
which one was being referred to. This merely carried on a
principle of distinction made in the Septuagint, and by the
writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, although not always
with consistent success.[111-12]

ANALYSING THE USE OF 'LORD' IN THE GREEK SCRIPTURES
[114]

We now need to examine in some detail the
usage of the Christian Greek Scriptures with reference to the
title 'Lord' to determine to whom it applies, and what we learn
from this.[114]

A discussion of a number of passages which use
kurios in the Christian Scriptures follows.

In the book of Revelation one particular
phrase is repeated a number of times, "Jehovah God, the Almighty"
(NWT), or "Lord, the God, the Almighty"(KIT). This
expression is found at Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7; 19:6;
21:22 and twice without 'the Almighty' being added at Rev. 18:8
and 22:5. . . . At Rev. 11:15 "the kingdom of our Lord and of his
Christ" nicely distinguishes the two 'Lords' and in 15:3, the
'song of the Lamb' (Christ Jesus), is in homage to Jehovah. In
Rev. 19:6, 7, the song of the great crowd to Jehovah is not only
because he has "begun to rule as king", but also because "the
marriage of the Lamb has arrived". At chapter 21:22, after
stating that "Jehovah God the Almighty is its temple" it adds,
"also the Lamb (is)" and the next verse again speaks of both God
and the Lamb; then 22:3 refers to "the throne of God and of the
Lamb". In all of these instances the two persons or Lords are
clearly separated and marked off from one another, and Jehovah is
always given the first position, with the added Greek word
pantokrator (Almighty) for good measure. The origin and
fulfillment of what takes place is usually ascribed to Jehovah,
but the unity of father and son is also a prominent
feature.

Lynn Lundquist applies this term
pantokrator (Almighty) to Jesus, because he makes this
fundamental mistake:

"if the Apostle John wrote the Greek word
Kyrios ... then the Lord Jesus was identified with 'God ... the
Almighty'." [TCGS]

He has confused the two persons, and cannot
see that the same Greek term is used for both Jehovah God and his
son Jesus Christ—the very reason for this
essay![*] The Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon makes
clear that the term pantokrator is used "only of
God"[**] and it then lists all the texts given above
together with 2 Cor. 6:18.[116]

[*] Anthony Byatt stated the
exact opposite of my position. I argue forcefully that the same
Greek word (kurios) is used for both Jehovah and Jesus
as Lord. See [TCGS].

Note that the Arndt and
Gingrich reference to "only of God" concerns its use in
the LXX wherein pantokrator is a translation of the
two Hebrew words Sabaot and Shadday. When used
in the Christian Scriptures, Arndt and Gingrich extend
it to the verses indicated above. Please also note that even
though our books do not argue a theological position
regarding the deity of Jesus, the statement "only of God" is
most certainly supportive of that position when kurios
and pantokrator are used together.

Our analysis has by no means been
exhaustive, but we have seen examples from all over the
Christian Greek Scriptures, which establish the following
points:

The two 'Lords' are usually carefully
distinguished.

Jehovah is always given the first place, with such
descriptive titles added, as Father or Almighty.

The use of the name Jehovah in so many of these
passages in the NWT, removes all confusion as to which
'Lord' is intended, helping the reader to understand in a
clear manner.[*]

Jesus Christ is also identified by other titles, such
as the Son or the Lamb, as well as Lord, and is always in
full harmony with his Father, Jehovah.[116]

[*] This is precisely the
concern of our book The Tetragrammaton and the Christian
Greek Scriptures. Over 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts
give conclusive evidence that the original authors did
not remove all confusion as to which "Lord" is
intended. In every instance, they used the single word
kurios which refers to both. We can only conclude that
they did not intend to cause the reader to understand with
precision that it was either one or the other. It is
therefore inappropriate for the translators of the New
World Translation to intentionally add a clarification
which the original authors did not.

THE PROBLEM OF IDENTITY IN THE CHURCH FATHERS
[116]

EXAMINING QUOTATIONS FROM THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
[118]

CHECKING THE 'EXPRESSIONS' AND ALLUSIONS [123]

Lynn Lundquist has compiled a chart showing
all 237 uses of the name Jehovah in the Christian Greek
Scriptures, but has only allowed 112 references which he has
identified as 'quotations' in columns 7 and 8. He rejects the
remaining 125 shown in columns 9 and 10 under ['Cross reference
citation only' (64 instances) and 'No quotations of reference
to the Hebrew Scripture' (61 instances). [TCGS]

Why did Lundquist completely ignore the word
'expressions' in the NWT Foreword, which also appeared
in the one volume edition of 1963, and Appendix 1D of the 1984
Reference Edition? In the note to his chart he mentions that
cross references supply 'parallel thoughts' and where each
reference is marked with an 'X,' that this "denotes that the
Hebrew verse cited does not support or offer any parallel
thought to the Jehovah wording" (notes 7, 16-18). [TCGS] . . .

We can appreciate how the apostles' and
disciples' constant use of the Greek Septuagint
translation would fix these oft-repeated expressions in their
minds, so that they came out naturally as they wrote the CGS.
They were identifying God as the Lord they were talking about,
and so how does a translator make that clear? He cannot use
'God' because that has its own Greek word theos, and
LORD, even in all capitals is not recognized by most readers as
standing for Jehovah in the OT or Hebrew Scriptures, and would
be even less likely to be referred to God in the NT or CTGS. So
since kurios often stands for Jehovah in the
Septuagint, it is reasonable to use Jehovah for it in
the CGS, where the IDENTITY of the Lord has been clearly linked
with God by these 'expressions', thus removing any ambiguity as
to who is meant. We give a list of these in the
footnote.[124]

There then follows an evaluation of a number
of these expressions which were used in the Septuagint
Hebrew Scriptures and transferred to the Christian Greek
Scriptures.

We next come to expressions and allusions
that Lundquist has missed. In fact, he does not seem to reach
beyond the thought of 'quotations' despite quoting from the
NWT Reference Edition Appendix 1D on page 40 of his
book, [TCGS] which includes
the phrase, "quoted verses, passages and expressions from the
Hebrew Scriptures." We will set out these passages and
contextual allusions (with 67 references) in parallel to make
them more concise and easier to follow: [125]

Anthony Byatt does an excellent job of listing
each of these Christian Greek Scripture references with their
corresponding Hebrew Scripture verses. He then begins his
summary of this topic by saying,

We have now considered all 125 of
Lundquist's references (in 4 groups of 35, 17, 6 and 67). Our
survey has clearly established that the identity in
every case is shown to be Jehovah God the Father, and not the
Lord Jesus Christ. This has been backed up by considering
Hebrew Scripture and/or Septuagint phrases in a large
number of cases, as well as evidence from related contexts,
together with the comments of many scholars who are not
Jehovah's Witnesses. This is what the NWT Bible
Committee did in the first place, and then they used the many
Hebrew NT translations to confirm those findings. It is
therefore quite wrong of Lundquist to say, "The remaining 125
Jehovah instances rely solely on Hebrew translations
made after 1386." [TCGS],
[TCGS], and [TCGS] [127]

At this point, we want to break into our
review of 'Your Word is Truth' because it will be more
understandable to deal with Anthony Byatt's comments to this
point as one topic, and that which follows as a separate
topic.

We clearly explained in The Tetragrammaton
and the Christian Greek Scriptures why we were conservative
in reporting the number of verses quoted from the Hebrew
Scriptures which identify Jehovah.[*] (Please
remember, however, that most authors recognize that an exact
number cannot be given because the Septuagint was not
always quoted verbatim.) However, we could willingly concede
that 'Your Word is Truth' is entirely correct regarding
the number of verses quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures which
identify Jehovah. From our point of view, it would cause no
difficulty if it could be shown that The Tetragrammaton and
the Christian Greek Scriptures was entirely too
conservative in the number it listed. If every reference
to these 237 Jehovah passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures
could be clearly identified as a references to Jehovah in the
Hebrew Scriptures, then the argument for the so called "deity
of Jesus" would be that much stronger.

[*] Simply stated, the
more Hebrew Scripture quotations using the divine name which
can be applied to Jesus, the stronger the case becomes for
identifying the attributes of Jesus with those of Jehovah. If
you are interested in pursuing the number of Tetragrammaton
citations further, you can consult some of the references to
this topic in The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek
Scriptures: A full explanation of each column [TCGS], Further comments on the
CROSS REFERENCE columns [TCGS], and, A summary of the
study [TCGS]. You
must also remember that J20—which lists only
44 quotations of Hebrew Scripture verses which contain the
Tetragrammaton in the CGS—was a primary reference
quoted by the New World Bible Translation Committee [TCGS]. Finally, on pages 31-36 of
Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Second Edition, Greg
Stafford also acknowledges that possibly as many as 144 of
the 237 Jehovah verses in the New World Translation
CGS are not citations from the Hebrew Greek Scriptures.
[TCGS]

Let me give an example. First Peter 3:15 has
long been a contested verse. 1 Peter 3:15 says, "But sanctify
the Christ as Lord in YOUR hearts." Yet, seven Hebrew versions
use the Tetragrammaton in this verse. At the very least, almost
all concede that the verse is an allusion to Isaiah 8:13.
However, 1 Peter 3:14 is listed as an uncontested quotation
from Isaiah 8:12 which suggests that Peter would be making
reference to Isaiah 8:13 in the following verse. Nonetheless,
the translator of the J17 Hebrew version considers
it to be a quotation as evidenced by his use of the
Tetragrammaton. Finally, J20 also recognizes it as a
quotation from Isaiah 8:13. Consequently, even though 'Your
Word is Truth' does not make reference to this verse in its
discussion under the heading CHECKING THE 'EXPRESSIONS' AND
ALLUSIONS, it would certainly fit their criteria as a verse
applying to Jehovah. Thus, by their own criteria, this verse
which is clearly understood by a Hebrew Scripture reader to be
referring to Jehovah, would be saying "But sanctify the Christ
as Jehovah in YOUR hearts." For more information on this
particular verse, see the Email Debate on this web
site.

Essentially the same argument could also be
made for 1 Peter 2:3 which says, ". . .provided YOU have tasted
that the Lord is kind." Because J20 identifies this
as a verse quoted from Psalm 34:8, and other Hebrew versions
use the Tetragrammaton, it should read, "provided YOU have
tasted that Jehovah is kind." However, in the following verse
which says, "Coming to him as to a living stone, rejected, it
is true, by men, but chosen, precious, with God." we understand
that 1 Peter 2:3 is a reference to Jesus. See the information
on our Contributions page for
confirmation of the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew versions for both
1 Peter 3:15 and 1 Peter 2:3.

(For other interesting uses of the
Tetragrammaton in Hebrew versions, see the additional examples
on this same Contributions
page.)

Now the real issue comes into focus. To
greatly simplify this debate, we can say that there are two
opposite points of view. The one point of view says that Jesus
was created by the Father and does not share his nature. The
other says that Jesus is eternal and thus has the same nature
as the Father. Without taking a position as to which point of
view may be correct, we realize that these two points of view
must handle Hebrew Scripture references containing the
Tetragrammaton quite differently when they are cited in the
Christian Scriptures. For one to whom Jesus is a created
being, when a verse from the Hebrew Scriptures identifies a
unique attribute of Jehovah, it must be applied to none other
than the Father when it is cited in the Christian
Scriptures. On the other hand, to one who believes that the
Father and Jesus are both eternal, an attribute which
exclusively describes Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures may be
applied to Jesus in the Christian Scriptures. From the
perspective of this second point of view, merely stating that a
verse was a reference to Jehovah in the Hebrew Scriptures does
not say that under inspiration, the Christian Scriptures cannot
use it in reference to Jesus as Lord.

There is a corollary to the statement in the
paragraph above. From the point of view that Jesus was created
by the Father, there must be a strong separation between the
word kurios in the Christian Scriptures when it is
applied to Jehovah of the Hebrew Scriptures and Jesus as Lord
in the Christian Scriptures. This is not the case from the
point of view that the Father and Jesus share equal attributes.
Certainly, there are times when one or the other is being
identified [TCGS]. Yet,
from the second point of view, because there is no inequity
between the two sharing the same title "Kurios" in the
Christian Scriptures, it is the context within the Christian
Scripture alone which determines (as much as possible) to whom
the Christian Scripture writer intended to apply it.

I need to restate what I just said. At present
I am not saying that one or the other of these points of view
is correct. I am merely reporting the way in which each point
of view must handle a reference to the divine name as
kurios in the Christian Scriptures. For one point of
view, the use of kurios with the meaning of Jehovah from
the Septuagint must be restricted to the Father alone.
For the other point of view, it may apply to either the Father
or Jesus and needs only the precision given to it by the
Christian Scripture writer. (That precision may be added by
having Jesus use kurios in reference to the Father, in
which case we understand that he is addressing Jehovah. In
contrast, the precision may come from combining Jesus' name
with kurios and we understand it to be a title of the
"Lord Jesus.")

It is for the above reason that the authors of
'Your Word is Truth' take such care in separating
Jehovah and Jesus as Lord when the word kurios is used
in the Christian Scriptures.

There is, however, a mistake translators from
both sides of this debate often make. Each frequently resorts
to their own theology to resolve the conflict. May I suggest
that theology is not the way in which this
conflict should be resolved? Rather, both points of view must
allow the Christian Scripture writers to say exactly that which
they intended to say. Where they were precise in their use of
kurios, the translator must convey that precision so the
English reader can see the meaning intended by the original
writer. However, when the original writer did not add precision
to the word kurios, then the translator is in error to
alter the translation to explain which "Lord" his theology says
is being described. So too, the New Testament translator who
wants to assure his readers that Jesus is more
than what the word kurios tells them in a specific
passage is equally in error when he adds qualities to the
"Lord" Jesus which are not expressed by the original writer.
When precision is rightfully included in the translation, it
must be added in the same way as it was originally described by
the Christian Scripture author. If the Scripture writer
qualified kurios with a second word such as "Father" or
"Jesus," then that word must be used. If the original writer
qualified it with a term such as "God," the translation must be
exact without substituting the divine name. If the original
writer qualified it only with context, or stated it as being a
quotation from the Hebrew Scriptures, then the English
translator must restate kurios with its English
equivalent and let the translation of the context alone guide
the reader. If the original author did not
qualify a statement, the translator is not at liberty to insert
his own qualification such as "[other]" in order to correct the
Scripture author. Jason BeDuhn has much to say on the subject
of bias in his book Truth in
Translation. It is well worth reading.

There is a high risk encountered in bringing
personal or sectarian theology to Bible translation. Too
frequently, when more than a single meaning may be possible in
the original Greek manuscript text,[*] the original
writer is manipulated into saying either more—or
less—than what he actually wrote. This is not legitimate
Bible translation. It becomes misleading Bible interpretation
in the guise of translation. (It is not improper to interpret
Scripture. Every group is free to do that. However, it is
improper to produce a Bible translation which appears to make
the original author agree with the theology of the group
publishing that Bible version.)

[*] The possibility of
multiple meanings is inherent in almost any writing,
including the Christian Greek Scriptures. A written document
is not smooth when every "she," "it," "they," "here," "that,"
and similar words (particularly adjectives) must be qualified
in order to remove uncertainty. In order to produce a written
document which is easy to read, most writers allow some
ambiguity and trust the reader to understand the sense based
on context and logic. If, for example, a "he" is doing
obedience to a "him" in a Gospel account, we understand that
the "he" must be someone in the context of the account, and
allow logic to identify the "him" as Jesus since we would not
expect Jesus to be doing homage to another man. The
inordinate demand on precision is what often makes technical
writing cumbersome to read. Read a U.S. Patent to understand
why 100 percent precision is not the writing style of the
Christian Scriptures!

In concluding this section, there is something
the reader should consider. How much complexity does it require
to support one or the other of the two points of view described
above? In the one case, it requires the existence of original
Greek manuscripts which have never been discovered, it must be
supported by historical evidence which is beyond verification,
it requires a specialized explanation of Christians altering
the original text in the second and third centuries C.E., it
further requires cataloging the meaning of each of the 714
occurrences of kurios in the Greek Scriptures to find
their referent (Jehovah or Jesus [*]), and finally,
it requires a specialized Bible version which must alter 237
kurios references (as well as alterations such as
"[other]") in order to achieve the desired meaning. (It is
exactly this kind of complexity which has produced the book we
are reviewing. Look at the chapter contents of 'Your Word is
Truth'. The chapter titles identify some of the
complexities which must be defended in order for the point of
view presented in the New World Translation to have
credence.) The other point of view merely requires reading (or
translating[**]) the Greek Scripture text without
adding more complexity.[***] This is the Greek text
which is supported by all manuscript evidence.

[*] With the few
exceptions where kurios is used of men.

[**] Every translation
will have some degree of bias simply because English does not
have a vocabulary with exact equivalents to the Greek
vocabulary of the Christian Scriptures. Of course, some
translations have more bias than others. And finally, each
translation acceptable to one or the other group may have
more—or less—bias in a particular
area.

[***] This statement is
not addressing the complexity of one or the other
theological positions. Certainly, there are inherent
complexities in every theology. This is true of a theology
which understands that God became a man, just as there are
inherent complexities in a theology which explains biblical
redemption apart from divine sacrifice. My statement is
limited to complexities in the use of the text in
which one point of view requires numerous qualifications
added to the text, whereas the other point of view is
satisfied by reading the text as written by the original
author.

Let's return to our evaluation of 'Your
Word is Truth'. Anthony Byatt continues his summary of
The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek
Scriptures.

But the situation is made much worse by a
further serious flaw in Lundquist's argument, which causes him
to take up a large amount of space quite unnecessarily. He
tries to place on the same level the KIT Greek text of
WH and the later Hebrew translations, and accuses the
NWT Bible Committee of "redefining inspiration."
[TCGS], [TCGS], [TCGS], [TCGS], and [TCGS] The evidence for the
Tetragrammaton's use by early Christians of the first century
C.E., must be carefully separated. There are indeed many
"telltale traces" of this, which Lundquist denies, some of
which can be picked up from clues still remaining in those
Hebrew translations. [TCGS] But that is entirely
different from using those Hebrew versions as
translations, merely to confirm what careful study
of the Greek text had revealed.[*] Did Lundquist
really think that the NWT Bible Committee was so naive
that it tried to parallel the original WH Greek text in
the KIT, with Hebrew translations of well over 1,300 to
1,900 years later?[**] [127]

[*] Dear reader, please
be aware of what you are being asked to do. The only evidence
which exists from over 5,000 Greek manuscripts shows no
indication of any kind that the Tetragrammaton was ever used
in the Christian Scriptures. The Watchtower Society
is forthright in telling you that there is no manuscript
evidence. (For reference, see Aid to Bible
Understanding, pages 886-888.) The only "evidence" is
conjecture. In fact, the primary use of the Tetragrammaton in
the Greek Septuagint (which is the Hebrew Scriptures,
not the Christian Scriptures) actually comes from three
reactionary Jews who lived in the second century
C.E. These three translators/editors (Aquila,
Theodotion and Symmachus) produced Hebrew Scripture
translations in Greek which contained the Tetragrammaton for
the very purpose of opposing Christians who were using
kurios in the Septugint to identify Jesus with
Jehovah. But this "evidence" that the Tetragrammaton was used
in the autographs (the original Christian Scripture documents
from which later copies were made) was not itself produced
until approximately one hundred years after the
Christian Scriptures were written. (For more information
about these three "Septuagint" versions, see Chapter 13. For a very technical
evaluation, see Appendix
J.) Notwithstanding the second century C.E. versions
by Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus, the Fouad Papyri 266
Septuagint manuscript which contains the
Tetetragrammaton is from the pre-Christian era. We could say
much more, but that must be left to The Tetragrammaton and
the Christian Greek Scriptures. Nonetheless, you should
realize that you are being asked to deny the authority
of the inspired Christian Scriptures for mere
conjecture on the part of the translators of the
New World Translaton. Yes, something certainly
is being substituted as having higher authority than
the Christian Scriptures!

[**] Both before and
shortly after The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek
Scriptures was published, I attended Service/Theocratic
meetings and Book Studies weekly for three years. Hebrew
versions were infrequently mentioned. When they were,
however, I had the strong sense that those responding were
under the impression that "the original WH Greek text
in the KIT [was paralleled] with Hebrew translations
of well over 1,300 to 1,900 years later." There was no
indication that the brothers or sisters understood the
discrepancy in dates. It was simply assumed that the Hebrew
versions were ancient documents which had sufficient weight
to override kurios used in the Westcott and Hort text.
I suspect that today, since this debate has become more
common knowledge, that that faulty view has, indeed, changed.
I believe, however, that The Tetragrammaton and the
Christian Greek Scriptures correctly represents the
perception of ones of Jehovah's Witnesses at the time it was
published.

Though there is more under this sub-heading on
which I could comment, I will close with Anthony Byatt's
statement regarding the translation principles of the New
World Translation. He says:

The NWT follows clear principles,
which are:

If kurios is used, determine from Hebrew
Scripture/Septuagint quotations, expressions,
allusions or phrases if the CGS writer was drawing
from any of those sources.

Examine immediate and parallel context for any clue
as to which kurios or Lord is meant, and so confirm
identity.

If the reference is clearly to God the Father, and
not to Jesus Christ, the translator exercises his choice to
make it clear to which of the two 'Lords' he refers, and
avoid ambiguity. He cannot use 'God' because that would make
for confusion with theos. If he uses 'Lord' he will
not distinguish the Father from the Son, and even LORD in all
capitals is not picked up by the vast majority of readers.
Since he knows kurios is used in the Septuagint
in place of the Tetragraazmmaton, he chooses to use 'Jehovah'
to identify the Lord as being God the Father.

He now checks some much later Hebrew translations to
see if those well-versed scholars of recent times confirm his
choice. He has made the same choice they made, but one
is in Hebrew and the other in English. He has in no way
infringed the priority of the Greek text, as he has clearly
shown by the KIT English interlinear.[127]

This may be a good description of what Anthony
Byatt wishes the New World Bible Translation Committee
had done, but it is not what they said they were doing.
(Anthony Byatt is not saying that this was their stated
translation guideline. He is merely describing the process as
he envisions it.) In contrast, the statement of the Committee
was,[*]

To know where the divine name was replaced
by the Greek words Kurios and Theos, we have
determined where the inspired Christian writers have quoted
verses, passages and expressions from the Hebrew Scriptures
and then we have referred back to the Hebrew text to
ascertain whether the divine name appears there. In this way
we determined the identity to give Kurio and
Theos and the personality with which to clothe
them.

To avoid over stepping the bounds of a
translator into the field of exegesis, we have been most
cautious about rendering the divine name in the Christian
Greek Scriptures, always carefully considering the Hebrew
Scriptures as a background. We have looked for agreement from
the Hebrew versions to confirm our
rendering.[**]

[*] The New World
Translation of the Holy Scriptures Reference Edition, pp.
1564-1565.

[**] In the quotation
above, the reader must note that the "agreement...which
confirms our rendering," does not come from the Hebrew
Scriptures, but rather from Hebrew versions (translations)
which are dated 1385 C.E. and later.

That which catches our attention most is not
simply that new criteria has been added to the New World
Translation's translation guidelines. (This includes: 1.
adding the Septuagint as a reference, 2. determining
"which Lord" is meant, 3. exercising choice to avoid
ambiguity,[*] 4. avoidance of 'Lord' for "God" or
"Father" because it would fail to distinguish the Father from
the Son, and, 5. use Hebrew versions merely to confirm a choice
already made.) What is most blatant about this statement is
that the suggested principle of translation for the New
World Translation is actually designed to prevent
the Greek text from speaking for itself. This new translation
principle is to take a predetermined theology to the text
which will differentiate between which "Lord" should be
identified for a given verse even when the Christian Scripture
authors do not make that same distinction. Isn't that
precisely the criticism made by Jason BeDuhn in Truth in Translation when he
evaluates biased translations produced to promote a specific
group's theology? The suggestion is not even that a footnote
will appear in the text giving the reader indication that there
is an alternate reading. (Which is a practice BeDuhn favors.)
This suggestion is as deliberate as saying that by the
translator's choice, when the Greek word kurios does not
convey the sense that best fits his theology[**], a
word which is not in the Greek text may be substituted.

[*] Many of these passages
are inherently ambiguous in the Greek text. Adding precision,
therefore, alters what the original author wrote because
he did not include precision in order to
identify either the Father or Jesus.

[**] Of course, Anthony
Byatt would never describe this choice as benefiting a
specific theology. However, consider what is involved. One
who believes that Jesus was created by the Father must make a
distinction between which "Lord" is being identified. In
contrast, one who believes that the Father and Jesus are
eternally equal does not need to make that distinction. So we
must ask ourselves, "What is the root cause for making this
distinction?" Is it not correct to say that the need to make
the distinction between "Lords" is based on one's theology
when the other point of view does not need that same
distinction? We are not talking about those verses which use
kurios in conjunction with additional Greek words
identifying either the Father or Jesus. We are talking about
the large number of kurios passages in the Christian
Scriptures which do not identify a referent.

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS NOT THE LORD GOD JEHOVAH
[129]

JEHOVAH THE FATHER IS ALONE GOD [132]

Chapter 2: Use Of The Divine Name In The Christian Greek
Scriptures by Hal Flemings

I said earlier that our book The
Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures is
extensively quoted and debated in Chapter 8: Distinguishing
the 'Lords': Does Jesus Take Jehovah's Name? but that it
was entirely ignored in Chapter 2: Use of the Divine Name in
the Christian Greek Scriptures. The review given above from
Chapter 8 touches on an important part of our book, but it is
not by any means the book's primary focus. The theme throughout
The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek Scriptures
is, as the title suggests, a search for evidence of the
Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures. As such, much
of our book is devoted to textual criticism (a study of ancient
Greek manuscripts for the purpose of determining what the
autograph [the original document written by the inspired
writer] said). In addition, the book evaluates historic
evidence and the writings of the early Church Fathers
(Patristics).

Irrespective of how much the Watchtower
Society wants to downplay their most unassailable obstacle in
order to introduce the name Jehovah into the Christian
Scriptures, that obstacle still remains. There is not one
trace of evidence that the Tetragrammaton was ever used in
either the autographs or any subsequent copies of the Christian
Greek Scriptures.

What is most notable about Hal Flemings'
writing in this chapter is his avoidance of the foundation
issues of textual criticism. He does not deal realistically or
credibly with the scholarly subject because doing so would move
him that much further from substantive evidence that the
Tetragrammaton was used in the autographs. His only
contribution is conjecture. Considering the desire of all
Bible-based groups (including the Watchtower Socieity) for a
faithful Christian Scripture (New Testament) text, this
inability to appeal to true textual criticism practices is a
fatal shortfall to their quest for placing Jehovah in the
Christian Scriptures. (For more information regarding the
textual critical and historical issues involved in bringing the
Tetragrammaton to the Christian Scriptures Greek text, see the
four chapters in The Tetragrammaton and the Christian Greek
Scriptures devoted specifically to this topic:
The Greek Text in the First
Century, Manuscript Publication Dates,
Removal of the Tetragrammaton
from Early Greek Manuscripts, and The Tetragrammaton or Lord
Quandary.)

Why was The Tetragrammaton and the
Christian Greek Scriptures entirely ignored in Chapter
2: Use Of The Divine Name In The Christian Greek
Scriptures? If there were merely disagreements regarding
the use of textual criticism in determining where the
Tetragrammaton should be inserted into the New World
Translation's Christian Scripture text, we would expect a
debate to follow. After all, textual criticism and a number of
related topics is what our book is about. Why, then, did Hal
Flemings completely sidestep any discussion of the technical
aspects of textual criticism? The answer is very simple.
Textual criticism cannot be used until there is enough textual
evidence to merit the study.[*] The Watchtower Society has no
manuscript evidence of any kind to support the insertion of
Jehovah into the Christian Scriptures.

[*] Even conjectural
emendation cannot be used apart from something in the context
which requires it. We will see more of that problem in the
closing comments.

When avoiding an appropriate application of
textual criticism, Hal Flemings must follow the oft-stated
formula that,

We need not be reminded that the Creator
inspired the New Testament autographs, not the copies that have
fallen into our hands. What has fallen into our hands has
distinct evidence of man-made error, some intentional and some
unintentional. That fact alone deserves sober reflection.
Hastily concluding that the virtual silence of the New
Testament manuscripts on repeating the Tetragram forces the
conclusion that the autographs were produced without that holy
name is neither reasonable nor scholarly. Indeed, concluding
abruptly that that is the case may denote a bias in some
instance.[43]

The reader must understand that even though
there are a huge number of errors in the more than 5,000
Christian Scripture documents we possess, they do not prevent
textual critics from producing an almost error-free Greek text.
The errors are most frequently distributed randomly throughout
the hand-copied manuscripts, and thus, for any given verse
under study, the majority of the manuscripts will agree.
Another common manuscript error is an identifiable variant
(different reading) in a group of manuscripts which are derived
from the same faulty source. However, by comparing all
manuscripts together, the preponderance of evidence will result
in a Greek text with extremely high reliability. For example,
the spurious addition to 1 John 5:7 which adds "and these three
are one" is easily identified as coming from very late, and
corrupted manuscript evidence.[*] Without any
question, this phrase can be removed from the verse because it
can be established that it was not in the autograph.

[*]The Text of the New
Testament, Bruce Metzger, p. 101.

In those cases in which there is uncertainty
regarding the correct reading, the area in question is
nonetheless known. For example, John 1:34 says, "And I have
seen [it], and I have borne witness that this one is the Son of
God." There is some manuscript variance regarding the phrase
"Son of God." The New World Translation selected the
most probable reading. However, there are two other less likely
possibilities. One unreliable manuscript family reads, "the
chosen one of God," and a few manuscripts read "the chosen Son
of God." Nonetheless, none of the possible readings change the
meaning of the verse.

The important point being, however, that in
every case, the textual critic can identify the word or
phrase which is uncertain.[*] In the illustration
from John 1:34 above, it is not a vague, "There is some kind of
problem with this verse." It is precise. The textual critic
will say, "We must choose between 'Son of God,' 'the chosen one
of God,' or 'the chosen Son of God.' Which of these three has
the best manuscript support?" There is a great difference
between knowing that an identified word or phrase is in
question, as against knowing that an unidentifiable error is
lurking somewhere in a passage. The former will alter the
reliability of Scripture very little. The latter would pose an
immense threat to the trustworthiness of our Bible.

[*] Very infrequently, this
may include more than words or phrases. There is a gap
between John 7:52 and 8:12 in the New World
Translation text. This gap results from an appropriate
application of textual criticism. These verses, often
referred to as "the adulterous woman," are not found in the
best Greek manuscripts. When they are inserted in lesser
quality manuscripts, they may be found in several locations
in the Gospel of John, or even in the Gospel of Luke. The
translators of the New World Translation appropriately
eliminated this passage from the Gospel of John.

Those appealing to "errors" in ancient
Christian Scripture manuscripts as a foundation for the
presumption that the Tetragrammaton was in the autographs are
misunderstanding—or miss stating—textual criticism
to buttress their argument. Considering the high degree of
development within the science (and art) of textual criticism
which exists today, it is impossible to claim that the
Tetragrammaton could be lost from the autographs without any
trace. Impossible! If, on the other hand, that claim were to be
pressed, it would throw the reliability of the Christian
Scriptures into such disarray and uncertainty that no one would
dare use it as anything but mere literature. Even a cursory
search of textual criticism handbooks will reveal that the
reliability of the passages surrounding the 237 Jehovah
references in the New World Translation Christian
Scriptures are of equal reliability to all other Christian
Scripture passages. On average, the remainder of the Christian
Scripture text is no more reliable than these 237 passages. It
is impossible to claim that the Christian Scriptures can be
used as instruction for faith while at the same time claiming
that the Tetragrammaton was removed from it in the first two
centuries C.E. The latter claim could only be made of a text
which was so unreliable that it was essentially worthless.

In fairness to Hal Flemings, he does include
this citation from D. A. Black, New Testament Textual
Criticism,

The sheer number of witnesses to the text of
the New Testament makes it virtually certain that the original
text has been preserved somewhere among the extant witnesses.
This means that 'conjectural emendation' (the proposal of a
reading not found in any surviving witness) should be called
upon as a last resort, if at all. This contrasts sharply with
the Old Testament textual criticism, where conjectural
emendation is a frequent necessity.[44]

Notwithstanding [the evidence Flemings has
given to support the Tetragrammaton in the autographs], the
dissenters still remind all interested parties that there is no
manuscript evidence showing the Divine Name in the NT.
In this vein, perhaps the following may be helpful. Textual
critic, Kyle McCarter suggest the following:

"[Emendation] should be attempted whenever
the text critic suspects that the primitive reading has not
been preserved by any exant witness."

Does not the issue involving the Diving Name
in the NT fit perfectly as an example of McCarter's suggestion?
The Witnesses' argument is that the bias should not overrule
the obvious implication that the Divine Name did indeed appear
in the NT autographs. McCarter's suggestion is rather striking;
remember that he states that even if there is NO manuscript
evidence for a reading, if one "suspects that the primitive
[the original] reading HAS NOT BEEN PRESERVED", then one may be
warranted in emending the material to reflect
that.[48]

The second half of 1 John 5:7 was exactly
that; an emendation which had almost no manuscript
support.[*] In the King James Version the verse
reads, ". . .the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one." Is reinstating this phrase what Hal
Flemings is arguing for? The problem is that we must choose
which translator's bias is acceptable and which is not. For the
translator to whom Jesus is a created being, emending the Greek
text to include the Tetragrammaton is acceptable, but emending
the last phrase to 1 John 5:7 is not. Conversely, for a
translator who believes that the Father and Jesus are both
eternal, emending the Greek text to include the last phrase in
1 John 5:7 might be acceptable, but emending the text to
include the Tetragrammaton is not. It must be very obvious that
this is not the way we arrive at a reliable translation of
God's Word.

[*] In the late 1400s, the
phrase "these three are one" could be found in Latin versions
but not in Greek manuscripts. Erasmus promised that he would
include it in his next edition of the Greek text if he was
shown a manuscript which contained it. In order to comply,
unbeknown to Erasmus, a scribe copied the entire Christian
Scriptures so that this one phrase could be "planted" in the
verse. As a result, Erasmus added the phrase in his 1522
edition of the Greek text which is now known as the Textus
Receptus. The first edition of the King James Bible was
translated from subsequent revisions of the Textus
Receptus in 1611. For more information, see The Text
of the New Testament, Bruce Metzger, p. 101.

But there is a more fundamental reason why we
disagree with the question "Does not the issue involving the
Diving Name in the NT fit perfectly as an example of McCarter's
suggestion?" At best, it would only fit if it involved a single
instance which was not in accord within a group of passages
which otherwise agreed with the proposed emendation. Hal
Flemings must be aware that each of the 237 Jehovah references
in question support each other. If, as an example, 236 of these
passages included the Tetragrammaton in the best manuscript
evidence, then this argument just might be acceptable for the
237th reference if the Tetragrammaton was missing and the text
appeared to have been altered. It could be argued, based on the
precedent of the other 236 similar passages, that the
Tetragrammaton was lost in this one instance. In contrast,
however, to emend the text in the first instance to include the
Tetragrammaton has 236 textual witnesses against
the emendation because all 237 read kurios
in the best preserved Greek manuscripts. An emendation (if
it can be justified at all), must correct a reading which
appears to be faulty when compared with all similar readings
which include the missing element. One could never justify
taking a series of passages which are uniform in their reading
and change them to another reading by claiming it was
legitimate emendation.

Suggesting that an emendation can be applied
to a number of verses to change their meaning is a gross
misunderstanding of the science (or art) of textual criticism.
It is nothing other than manipulation of the text.